Talk:Kosovo Liberation Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Kosovo Portal Kosovo Liberation Army is part of the WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article and other articles related to Kosovo are subject to article probation in the Kosovo arbitration case. If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.

[edit] Change

change the part that says that Agim Ceku is current primeminister of Kosova. and write that primeminister from 9 january 2008 is ex-KLA leader Hashim Thaci —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.172.67 (talk) 23:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stated Aims

The KLA has officially stated, or did officially state, that it's aim was to attack Serbian Civilian Targets in order to ellicit a Serbian Military Occupation of Kosovo to protect the Serb Minority, which would inevitable drag NATO into the conflict. Like it or not the KLA is a criminal terrorist organization with links to Sex Trafficking, Drug Dealing and other nefarious criminal acts (Agency France Press). Cut the American Propaganda and start working on the article to show a fair representation of what happened. The fact that The Spanish Forensics Team Leader returned home from Kosovo without having found a single mass grave, and complaining of a being subject of a 'semantic piroutte by the War Propaganda Machine', evidently isn't enough - The Media don't seem to give a shit either, 2000 Bodies where uncovered in Kosovo, most of them were KLA Terrorists, Serbian MPs or Serbian Civilians, one estimate that the WSJ gives is 700 Kosovans over the period '91-'99. That's terrible, but that clearly ISNT mass genocide. PatrioticGreekCypriotStandingByHisSerbianOrthodoxBrothers

Ti Kamnis Re?

I think we all know that the KLA was a Terrorist Organisation fighting for one goal: A 'Greater Albania' including Kosovo. They intended to leverage the demographics of Kosovo, ie, its majority Albanian population, in order to harass and terrorise the Serb Minority which would force a Yugoslav Army intervention, and a NATO response. No mass graves were ever found, no evidence of Genocide in the FBI Investigating Team's own words! What a joke.

NATO for its part wanted to break up the only real opposition to its power in Eastern Europe, both militarily and economically: Serbia. Serbia was and still is the strongest military force in Eastern Europe outside of Russia. It did not conform to the norms of a satellite state in that it was: a. Not small enough to be considered a non-threat and b. Militarily too powerful compared to the rest of Eastern Europe.

NATO succeeded in its aims of creating a plethora of small, manageable satellite states out of the former Yugoslavia - we only have to look at the situation now with completely arbritrary states such as FYROM and the Protectorate of Kosovo etc.

Oh well another year, another unjust War.....somehow I don't think there will be any more Wars fought by the West in favour of a Muslim population for some time :) thank God. 82.35.34.24 02:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In serbian official propaganda: Terroris Army for

Regarding the Al-Qaida and KLA ties, I think this is pretty ridiculous. They trained in camps in Albania, which was full of CIA operatives at the time. I seriously doubt you could have Al-Qaida operating in Albania at the time. There has been no proof about this at any time that I have heard of. The only reason people allege this is because of propaganda. What did Al-Qaida give to the KLA? Why would they do so? The KLA had no reason to set up a Muslim state. The KLA was financed by Kosovars from abroad, and perhaps in some way by the US. There were plenty of guns available in Albania for pennies at the time (due mostly to the depo looting in 1997, people were using AKs as fence posts). Does anyone have any proof of these allegations? Dori | Talk 13:59, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

I think some of these allegations stem from what Milosevic said during his trial (BBC), supposedly quoting an FBI investigation; there's also testimony from Interpol (CRG report, U.S. Congress transcript) that the two groups were linked via the heroin trade from Afghanistan. I can't pass judgement on the truth or validity of the stories, but they have been told, so they bear mentioning. --69.156.205.32 14:12, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) (Here's a copy of the FBI testimony as cited by Milosevic; here's the original. The KLA isn't mentioned by name.)

the only source I've been able to find in the US media for these claims is a series of articles in the Washington Times - see "KLA rebels train in terrorist camps," Jerry Seper, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, May 4, 1999. The Wash. Times, because of its extreme political stance and history of distortions, isn't really a credible source IMO, but that's what there is out there. In any case, the claim as a whole seems way too poorly documented to be included.Ossicle (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) as a guerrilla liberation movement no longer exists. The mission of the KLA was to liberate Kosovo from Serbian occupation, and the moment the last Serbian policeman and soldier left Kosovo never to return again, the mission of the Kosovo Liberation Army was accomplished. Hence, there is no need on the gound for a guerrilla liberation movement.

Nevertheless, there was and there is a need for an army to protect Kosovo from any outside attack. The United Nations and NATO recognise this need, in particular following the atrocities committed by Serbian troops in Kosovo during the 1990s. Hence, the Kosovo Liberation Army has been transformed into Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC).

As the name suggests, the role of the Kosovo Protection Corps is to protect Kosovo from any outside threat. Since NATO troops are stationed in Kosovo and provide security, KPC members are only lightly armed. There are 3,000 active members of KPC and 2,000 reserves. The role of these corps is different to that of KLA in that KPC acts as a protector, whereas the role of the KLA was to liberate.

I hope this explains why Kosovo Liberation Army as a liberation guerrilla movement no longer exists. Kosovar 02:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

this explanation is also attested to by the series of New York Times articles published at the end of the 1999 Paris negotiations. [[1]], e.g. "The Kosovo Liberation Army was disbanded under an agreement with the NATO-led peacekeeping mission in Kosovo. Since then, several thousand of its members have joined the liberation army's civilian successor and new police force, the Kosovo Protection Force."[[2]]Ossicle (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KLA as a terrorist organisation

According to our very own definition, Terrorism is a tactic of violence that targets civilians, with the objective of forcing an enemy to favorable terms, by creating fear, demoralization, or political discord in the attacked population. That the KLA has used terrorist tactics (atrocities agsainst civilians, house burnings, executions, torture etc) to achieve its political goals is well documented by authoritative independent human rights organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. HRW has an extensive report [3] on this.

"The US-based Human Rights Watch organisation released a report at the beginning of August, entitled "Abuses against Serbs and Roma in the new Kosovo", which documents an apparently coordinated campaign of abductions, beatings, house-burning and murders of Serbs and Roma by the KLA. In addition to the widely publicised killings in Gracko and Prizren, the report describes many other little known atrocities.

Researchers viewed the bodies of three Serbs killed on June 19 in the village of Belo Polje, near Pec. Villagers claim that 10 uniformed KLA soldiers entered the village and executed Radomir Stosic, aged 50, his uncle Steven Stosic, 60, and their friend Filip Kosic, 46. Each of the men was killed by a shot between the eyes at point-blank range. According to the Serbian Orthodox Church in Pec, 30 Serbs were killed in the municipality during June and July.

KLA soldiers in the village of Pones in the Gnjilane municipality abducted six cowherds on June 19. The men were beaten and interrogated, and two of them—Momcilo Dimic, 60, and Cedomir Denic, 50—were later found dead. KFOR officers in the town of Obilic reported that eight Serbs have been killed there since early June in what are described as "organised attacks" in which "KLA units were implicated".

In the town of Lipljan, KFOR officers reported that a male Serb was decapitated in the middle of the busy town market on July 9, between 11 am and 3 pm. One week later, four grenade attacks were carried out against Serb homes in the town in the early afternoon, killing one person. The attacks were carried out within the space of one hour and at regular intervals.

Four elderly Serb men in the village of Slivovo were reportedly abducted and killed in the third week of June. Two Roma men, Bajram Berisha, 34, and Vesel Berisha, 24, were killed by unknown assailants in Mitrovica in late June. Three Roma are believed to have been murdered in the town of Djakovica and three families burned in their homes in the village of Dubrava, also in June.

Researchers also document the abduction, interrogation and torture of numerous Serb and Roma civilians—mostly elderly men. The purpose of abductions and beatings appears to be to terrorise people into leaving Kosovo, as most are subsequently released. Many victims exhibited extensive bruising and knife cuts when interviewed by Human Rights Watch researchers. Those reported abducted by the KLA but not released are "presumed dead". The report describes the following testimony of 71 year-old S.B. as typical: "[KLA soldiers] grabbed me, brought me down to the cellar and took turns hurting me. There were several of them, all in uniform... While they were beating me, they insulted me, called me ‘Chetnik,' and told me to leave forever."

House-burnings are a commonplace occurrence. Thirty Roma homes were torched in the Brekoc neighborhood of Djakovica within the space of three hours on July 12. Uniformed KLA soldiers told the families to leave their homes a few days before. The Roma neighbourhood in Pec was almost entirely looted and burned in late June. Most Serb and Roma homes in the village of Slovinje suffered a similar fate, as did the local Orthodox Church. Other targets of arson include the Serb areas of the villages and towns of Lipljan, Magura, Dolac, Drenovac, Brestovik, Vitomira, Istok, Belo Pojle, Veric, Srbobran and Obilic. There has also been widespread burning and looting of former Serb and Roma areas of Pristina. Recent reports tally at least 200 villages and 41 Serbian churches have been destroyed since KFOR established control over the province.

Human Rights Watch observed: "The most serious incidents of violence... have been carried out by members of the KLA. Although the KLA leadership issued a statement on July 20 condemning attacks on Serbs and Roma, and KLA political leader Hashim Thaci publicly denounced the July 23 massacre of 14 Serb farmers, it remains unclear whether these beatings and killings were committed by local KLA units acting without official sanction, or whether they represent a coordinated KLA policy..."

The report concluded: "The intent behind many of the killings and abductions that have occurred in the province since early June appears to be the expulsion of Kosovo's Serb and Roma population rather than a desire for revenge alone. This explanation is borne out by more direct and systematic efforts to force Serbs and Roma to leave their homes." It cites the fact that large numbers of Serbs and Roma report being directly warned by ethnic Albanians, under threat of violence, to leave Kosovo and never return.[4]

(ai): Amnesty International today called on Hashim Thaçi, former political representative of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), to take a strong and visible stand against all killings, abductions, ill-treatment, house burnings and attempts at expulsion committed against members of ethnic minorities in Kosovo.[5]

So in conclusion, there can be little doubt that the KLA belongs in the category of terrorist organisations, it is perfectly NPOV. Note that I use "terrorist organisation purely in a descriptive way, not as a moralistic label. Maybe the controversy is based on the unfortunate propagandistic way in which "terrorist" is often used. If so, I suggest we rename the category "terrorist organisation" to something different. But the KLA definately belongs in this category.pir 10:00, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To the above posting: Here is your great flaw. You use the definition of terrorism as the following: "According to our very own definition, Terrorism is a tactic of violence that targets civilians, with the objective of forcing an enemy to favorable terms, by creating fear, demoralization, or political discord in the attacked population". If we all agree to this, then who is not to say that Yugoslav and Serbian army was not a Terrorist Army. After all, they did all the above things in a terrifying scale. Using the same quote from teh HRW in this article:

"The vast majority of these abuses were committed by Yugoslav government forces of the Serbian special police (MUP) and the Yugoslav Army (VJ). Under the command of Yugoslav President Slobodan Miloševic, government troops have committed extrajudicial executions and other unlawful killings, systematically destroyed civilian property, and attacked humanitarian aid workers, all of which are violations of the rules of war. The Albanian insurgency, known as the Kosova Liberation Army (KLA, or UÇK in Albanian), has also violated the laws of war by such actions as the taking of civilian hostages and by summary executions. Although on a lesser scale than the government abuses, these too are violations of international standards, and should be condemned." So the bottom line is that both the KLA and Yugoslav/Serbian army have violated laws of war, but the later has done in it in a much more systematic way. If you want to use terrorist label on either one of these two groups, then Yugoslav/Serbian army is first in line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luftetari07 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. But I'm very uncomfortable with putting what is essentially a guerilla movement in with the likes of Al-Qaida. The KLA didn't bomb buildings, it didn't crash airplanes into buildings, didn't hijack cruise ships, and didn't have a great record of taking hostages.

I have somehow missed this discussion. The KLA did bomb buildings, and does have a great record of taking hostages. Nikola 02:47, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Interesting - have you got links to credible reports of these? pir 11:11, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Simply see Google:KLA destroyed and Google:KLA abducted. Nikola 06:47, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the KLA is a lot closer to Falantil (now the governing party of East Timor) than ETA, Hamas, Aum Supreme Truth or Al-Qaida. If the term terrorist organisation was commonly measured by your definition, I'd be prepared to accept this.

Alas, I think we both agree that the label, in this day and age, means otherwise. In the interests of peace, I'm not going to revert you - yet - but if we're going to follow this definition, methinks the terrorist organisations category needs a rename. Ambi 10:38, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, I see your point for sure. I think the Category:Terrorist organisation is quite unfortunate, but I can't think of a different term that still has the precise meaning of terrorist (i.e. violence targetting civilians to achieve political aims) - maybe you have a good idea? I tried to achieve NPOV by adding a lot of militant organisations that use terrorist methods from a broad range of political ideologies (communist, anarchist, nationalist independence, Islamist, Zionist, pro-US, pro-Soviet, etc.). Maybe this ought to be comibined with a clear definition of the category, dealing with the difficulties. Can you think of a better solution? I'm very open to that. pir 11:53, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For starters, it might be an idea to put your suggested definition on the category page itself.

I guess the key point here is where the borderline is between a guerilla group and a terrorist organisation. The vast majority of entries in that category would seem to me to be fairly indisputable. There's a handful, however, that seem to straddle the line, due to their lack of typically terrorist tactics. Of these, it seems to me that the KLA is the hardest to call.

I guess what I'm trying to avoid is having every seperatist group, every group that a recognised government does not like, in this category - as I believe Morocco thinks the Polisario Front a terrorist organization, and China the same with the Falun Gong. Ambi 12:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that it is not acceptable to take any government's POV on a particular group. I think the point here is that the KLA mounted an terror campaign against an ethnic group, through killing civilians and burning houses for example, with the aim of achieving ethnic cleansing. This is not a guerilla tactic, it is a terrorist tactic (although the KLA could at the same time also be classified as a guerilla group) which has also been used by Zionist terrorist groups like Lehi (group) or Irgun (Deir Yassin massacre). I don't think the technical means used (bomb attacks vs. burning houses, hijackings vs. massacres e.g.) matter, what counts is that it is violence targetting civilians leading to an atmosphere of terror. I'll add a description to the category soon pir 12:53, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can accept that. Ambi 12:59, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you think this is a sensible definition of the category? pir 13:23, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What complete rubish you people write. How come then that there is not a single Serb armed group in your list? How come the Serb army, Serb policy, Bosnian Serb Army, Arkan's Tigers, The Red Berets, Sokolovi, Kobre... are not in the list of terrorist organisation? If Kosova Liberation Army were a terrorist group how come then NATO and the United Nations signed peace agreements with them. How can one judge an army based on the actions of very few individuals. Are you suggesting that the U.S. Army and the British Army soon be added to the list of terrorist groups because some of their members abuse and terrorise innocent civilians. The leadership of the KLA always condemned acts of revenge against the Serb minority in Kosovo, and it has never been the policy of KLA to terrorise innocent civilians. But more importantly, I have a question for you: today Serbs refer to Milosevic as a brutal dictator who was ruthless against his enemies, including the Serbs. How come then that a group who fought against this dictator and his many followers be called a terrorist group? Can you name one single action of the Kosova Liberation Army outside the bounderies of Kosovo? No! The KLA has the support of the vast majority of the local population and is seen as a liberation movement or freedom fighters. Did the KLA ever attack anyone in Belgrade, or in Nis, or in Novi Sad... Did the KLA ever blow up bridges in Serbia? Or hijacked buses or trains?

How on earth you can say that you have a neutral point of view when 90 per cent of the local population, i.e. Kosovars who suffered the most in the war, see the Kosova Liberation Army as freedom fighters. Surely their opinion matters. Now I urge you to go back to the list of your terrorist organisations and add all the Serb groups that committed the massacres of Sarajevo, Srebrenica, Prekaz, Recak, Krusha e Madhe, Besiana, and many many others. --Kosovar 16:59, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To Kosovar: I am a Borderlander (Serb) that had to leave his home (in which now a stranger lives), the life of his only sister and many other things in Croatia, after I was exiled from my homeland... ONLY because I was of Serbian blood, and I know what the Kosovars (Serbs AND Albanians) have to pass through, for their lives are being destroyed by several foul, evil faces that hide under their "iron curtains" in Tirana, Priština and Belgrade. I must agree with Kosovar, for you people DO REALLY write rubbish, even though I must DISAGREE at several matters with him. The SerbIAN (please, don't mix the rest of us with the SerbIANs) Army is the present army of Serbia and Montenegro, formed only recently, so you probably mean on the Yugoslav People's Army, for it, during the early 1990s committed serious crimes against the Albanian population of Yugoslavia's most southern regions. THEN it called the evil cluches of TERRORISM. The Bosnian Serb Army, even though in response to the ethnic cleansing that the muslem Bosnaques implied on the Bosnian Serbs before the war, had no justification to seize 4/5 of Bosnia and besiege Sarajevo. And what is for the Red Berrets, Arkan's Tigers, etc. those are simply paramilitary organs of the Army that "cleaned the dirt" for the country (calling for terrorism, ofcourse). I must diesagree, though, with Kosovar mentioning "Serb minority", for it was more-than-a-minority before they were chased away from their homes. You might get mad at me for mentioning this, Kosovar, but I rally do have to: We can all remember the terrible March's dying of the Kosovar Serbs; the Kosovar Albanians were INDEED chased terrorised constanly through the decades; but the March's Dying was completly a terroristic act. Several Kosovar Serbs were accused to have killed several little Albanian boys. The Albanian civilian population protested, claiming that not even while the USA keep them under the proctatorate, they are still in danger. The killings started. MASSIVE killings of innocent Serbs. The Serbian government appealed the population of Kosovo to wait until the investigation was complete. Several centuries old monasteries were either damaged or COMPLETLY ruined. Havier Solana denied that this is "ethnic cleansing", but when the Belgrade authorities called him to come and see with his own lives, his look was terrifyed. A little while later, he quitted his job because of "health regulations". It turned out later that the Kosovar Serbs weren't responsible for the crime.... LONG after the March's Slaughter. It is THEN that KLA became a terroristic organisation (in fact, after that, the US claimed that they put them under the list of terrorists, although they pulled it later, when most of the ethnic cle..... "civil disorder" stopped. As for your point on KLA's only limitation to the boundries of Kosovo and Metochia, I must disagree there as well. You probably haven't heard of the Vranje disorder, though to be an act of KLA. Later, the Kosovar authorities claimed that it was only an act of "several primitive Kosovar brigands and outlaws". And, plus that, a large portion of KLA was trained in Albania and sighted in Macedonia. If not for the clever Macedonian authorities in Skopje, war could've broken out there, as well. As for your 90% Albanians of Kosovo, you should look for other info, as the number was lower before the didsorder. For instance, we all know of Janjevo, a place in Kosovo where mostly Croats lived. They all went back to Croatia as soon as the problems started.

As for the Bosnian war, my friend, ALL armies have comitted crimes: The Army of the Republic Serbian (Bosnian Serbs), The Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Muslem Bosnaques), The Army Of Herzeg-Bosnia (Bosnian Croats)=ALL Terrorists. (P. S. Sarajevo was indeed bombed by the Bosnian Serbs' Army, but then also would NATO be a terrorist organisation when it bombed Belgrade and numerios other Serbian-populated cites in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Metohija; the muslim authorities slaughtered all Serb citizens in Sarajevo as a response to the siege) I only pray that there would be more Kosovars like you, for if all Albanians were like you, my friend, and all Serbs were like me, entire western Balkans would be now a gigantic Federation between our two nations, that would greatly ecxede the glory of Tito's Yugoslavia.

                                      Truly yours, my Kosovar friend, a Serbian Borderlander

You miss the point. The only question which matters here is whether or not the KLA has used terrorist tactics, i.e. targetted civilians with violence to create a climate of terror to achieve its political aims. There is very solid evidence for that (see above). To classify the KLA as terrorist is not equivalent to making a moral judgement about the KLA (a lot of people seem to think terorism is legitimate, judging by its frquent use by many political groups), or about any other people/groups you mention above. I do agree with you that other groups (in particular Serb groups) need to be included in this category too. Unfortunately the articles don't seem to exist yet - maybe you'd like to create them? pir 23:05, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

KLA never targeted Serb civilians per se. Were there civilians killed by KLA? Sure. If KLA had wanted to kill civilians tough it could have killed 10's of thousands of them. Serbs were spread all over Kosovo and Serbian army did not safeguard every Serbian village. So this talk about KLA having deliberately attacked civilians is not substantiated by any reliable and independent source. On the other side there is a lot of evidence that suggest the Serbian Army, Police and paramilitaries did target civilians deliberately [see mass graves in Serbia 6 years after the conflict]. Now the question is: can the Serbian Army and police (of that time) be classified as terrorists? They clearly inflicted terror in the harts of the civilian population. Seems to me that is a good enough reason to put them in this category. No?--Ferick 01:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

            Dear Serbian BorderLander and any other Serbians, it is very sad that you had
 to experience the outcomes of a war.

With absolutely no doubt, everyone would agree with
me when I say that nothing good resolves out of a bloody war. Unfortunately you had to see
it with your own eyes, but do not assume that the rest are blinded by some rubbish,
presented on air by some media that is owned by some political power and serves only
itself. Unfortunately I also had the chance to personally encounter this conflict,
(not to the same degree as you might have). Maybe it was because of the neutral perspective that
I observed things happening, since I was residing in Albania at the time. But if anyone wants
to talk about “ethnical cleanse”, I must have to mention those thousands Kosovar that came
to my country, Albania, because they were thrown out of their homes and lands, and their
houses were burned down till the last ash. Anyone wants to talk about massacre? Well, allow
me to introduce the latest technique (invented and used only by Serbs), in which involves
the caring of a pregnant women. In other words Serbian troops raped them, slit their
stomach and the inside, which as you may assume by now was nothing but innocent life,
was thrown out and fed to dogs. And when these troops were retuned home, they were called
heroes. On the other hand, KLA which was established after such massacre occurred, was
faced with the title “terrorist group”, why? My only guess is because desperately they
were trying to protect their wives and daughters from being raped and killed, their houses
from being burned down, and their lives from being thrown away. If anyone finds such deeds
to be sinful then go ahead and call them “terrorist”. But remember that there is always two
sides of a story, not to mention in a war, in which there is only two sides. But this does not
allow anybody to be historically and politically incorrect. Using the term “terrorist”
includes the most brutal and diabolic interventions done to innocent civilians by
individuals for a cause, an idea or belief, which in the case of Serbs, was formulated
completely wrong, and based on the above example of the merciless interventions of Serbian
troops, they are the ones who should be affiliated with title “terrorist”.

The KLA is a terorist group.Lord feanor 01:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terms

You said that the term was used by US. OK, then we can you the term Serb aggression also used by US. --Emir Arven 13:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No. At the time, US started war against Serbia. This is why every their statement can be suspected, as a part of wartime propaganda. However, if even the US, which started the war, and sided with KLA in it, used the term terrorist to describe it, we can trust that, at it doesn't follow their propaganda efforts. Nikola 05:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Crap. Silly logic. And not true. --Emir Arven 16:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal: Mediation

Thanks for intervening, Ted, but I don't think this is a suitable case for mediation. 1liberator has repeatedly edited the article anonymously to add a highly POV, badly formatted paragraph, violating the 3RR in the process (see e.g. [6]). Misza13 has already explained why 1liberator's edits] weren't acceptable. 1liberator hasn't responded to those comments. If 1liberator wants to discuss the issue, he can and should do, but it's not appropriate to jump straight to mediation. -- ChrisO 12:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Chris, as I look at this, I think that 1liberator hasn't figured out talk pages or user pages yet. he askes to be contacted by email in the mediation request, but didn't leave his email address. since you've said he's emailed you, would you be comfortable sending him an email explaing that he should log in and check his own user talk page, and the discussion page of the article? I'll leave a note for him on the mediation request page, but it would be faster if you sent him an email... Ted 13:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Cabalists: Thank you for your time and effort here. I am new here, but I am learning the ropes. My 3 last edits were, I believe, in accordance with Wiki rules. YET, Chris-o again deleted them. I believe that Chris-o just does not like my point of view. I believe that KLA is a terrorist organization, like Al-Qaeda, and that KLA was and is, in fact, responsible for ethnic cleansing and de facto Genocide of the minorities of Kosovo. In fact, what I have to say about the KLA is the truth. How can the truth be POV? If you do not like what I have to say, you should nonetheless let me speak the truth, and there is a plethora of evidence about what I have to say. I believe Chris-o has a personal stake in this dispute, and we must rise above personalty here and come to a mutual understanding of what happened there. I know, since I worked in Kosovo, that there are no minorities left there, that KLA commited ethnic cleansing, war crimes, etc. but the article reads like a propaganda pamphlet about the KLA; they are a bunch of murderers, racist war-criminals and ethnic cleansers, after all. I saw with my own eyes the destroyed churches, the burned villages, the bodies of Romany and Serbian civilians (farmers) charred and bullet-ridden, and you are telling me I can not mention even a word about KLA's crimes in the article. Perhaps, the KLA also brought 'freedom' to Kosovo Albanians; perhaps they just brought them more enslavement by KLA drug-prostitution-weapons gangs the NATO and UNMIK personnel, and multi-national corporations. At the very least, the article is TOO POV in that it portays the KLA too favorably; let's not forget they are murderers, just as much as the Serbian police and army forces, etc. That HAS to be said, otherwise this article sounds false since it portrays the terrorists in a favorable, untenable light, in view of the atroticites they commited. Let us, therefore, work together on drafting a version that will include the OTHER side's facts, not just terrorist propaganda by Chris-o (pardon my french) Thank you for your time and understanding in this very important matter. Ps. Chris-o, please do not accuse me of violating the rules when you did not even allow my postings to stay for 36 hours, etc. so history proves that you violated the rules, too, (please see history) except you are an established person administrator here, and charged with the knowledge of the rules. Pss. Discuss the issue? I wrote you 3 emails, none of which you responded to, except you deleted my postings ASAP -- summarily. In fact, the intesity of your hatred for my work makes me believe that you have a PERSONAL stake here, and sorry this is not a forum for supporting terrorist organizations. Here we go, please contact your 1liberator here :)03:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey 1liberator...  :-) ok, I see some issues here. I'm not sure you're understanding Wikipedia's place in the universe, and that's what's causing the conflicts. You have to remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper, blog, or research journal. that puts some odd limits on what can be said here. point by point:

• encyclopaedias aim to be factual: they don't report beliefs, opinions, or even the truth unless unless those things can be demonstrated through verified and verifiable facts. if you've seen things, and what you've seen has convinced you that the KLA is a terrorist organization, and you want to present what you've seen to the world as new facts, the proper place to do that is through the news, or through academic research, or through political action. when you have put them before the world and they have become established facts, then they will surely end up in encyclopaedias like this.
• if the beliefs, opinions, or truths that you want to present here actually are verifiable (you have newspaper or research articles, statements by politicians or scientists, or the like), then please cite them. for example, if you simply want to call the KLA terrorists, that will probably get you reverted: terrorist, used by itself, is harsh and insulting. however, if you have documented evidence of some statesman calling the KLA terrorists, then you would probably be justified in saying something like "the KLA have been accused of being terrorists by notable figures such as (so-and-so) (see (such-and-such))", where (such-and-such) is a decent reference to (so-and-so's speech). likewise, saying " I saw with my own eyes the destroyed churches, the burned villages, the bodies of Romany and Serbian civilians" is something to be published in a newspaper or journal; in an encyclopaedia you can only point to documented evidence (photojournalist pictures, United Nations reports, oficial documents in the public domain...
• it's really bad form to accuse other editors of having a personal stake without good evidence. ChrisO has (as far as I can tell) merely been trying to keep a balanced, neutral tone, which is proper for an encyclopaedia; he's not trying to exclude you. if you will be more factual in your own writing I think you will run into fewer problems. history will judge the KLA; it's not the purpose of an encyclopaedia to do so. see what I'm reaching for? Ted 16:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ted:

I backed up all my claims with about 300 articles from the BBC, and Chris-o deleted them. Where could I properly post these articles, so that Chris-o does not delete them? Secondly, how can you claim that Chris-o has a neutral view when he does not even mention the expulsions and ethnic cleansing and anti-minority violence in his article? He makes the KLA sound like the boy scouts; are they not more like Al-Qaeda? That is the well-documented truth, so please allow me to properly post (cite) my sources, so that I can demonstrate facts. Like, I could post the indictment of Haradinaj by the ICTY. Or, I could post the BBC article where the top NATO commander accuses the KLA of Ethnic Cleansing. Ooh, guess what, I already did -- please see history -- but Chris-o deleted it ASAP! So, I am sorry, but I demurr to your position -- Chris-o seems not to want anyone to post anything remotely distasteful about the KLA; bunch of murderous thugs. So, again, I do not want to be one-sided, please could we formulate a joint statement that reflects on the crimes commited, and currently inflicted, on the people of Kosovo -- Albanians, Serbs, Romas and others -- that properly reflects the facts. I apologize to you and Chris-o for my attitude, but I myself am offended, insulted and outraged that the KLA is represented in a favorable light. That is like calling Al-Qaeda the "good ole boys" see what I'm getting at? Again, my sincere apologies, and thank you for your hard work here, please teach me to cite properly, and I'll give you evidence; preferably, we could avoid this and formulate a joint paragraph on the evil side of the KLA. And of course please write to me here 1liberator 20:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Dear Ted, as a second reply to your assesment, I in fact attempted to cite properly, albeit with no skill. Would you kindly help me to "polish-up" this article. Now, at least I properly cited evidence so there is no dispute that these are the facts. Thank you endlessly, your 1liberator 20:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC) (still learning the ropes!) :) Specificaly, could you please help me properly post my enumerated cites in the references section? Thank you :)

OK, here's what I see. the quality of your sources seems fine (though that's an amateur's opinion; I'm no expert on this subject), but your style is somewhat aggressive. for instance, just looking at the edits you'vve made over the last couple of days:

any time you say 'there is evidence', immediately show the evidence

where you say, for instance: There is, however, evidence to suggest that the "Racak Massacre" was, in fact, a CIA-orchestrated propaganda move designed to "shock and awe" the international community into military action in Kosovo, you've made a very strong statement, but I don't immediately see any supporting evidence. it would be better to say something like, Some have suggested that the "Racak Massacre" was, in fact, a CIA-orchestrated propaganda move designed to "shock and awe" the international community into military action in Kosovo (see citation, citation)., where the citations point to appropriate verification. that takes the apparent bias out of the previous statement and makes it a matter of public record.

try not to add emotional content that goes beyond the facts actually in evidence

a bit later you write: Mr. Ceku is known as an international terrorist, and wanted for War Crimes and other criminal acts in several states. [7]. well, the actual article you're referring to is more circumspect. it says, "The KLA's new leader, Agim Ceku, may have helped mastermind the most brutal ethnic-cleansing campaign in post-communist Yugoslavia's history". you might rephrase this by saying something like according to Mother Jone's magazine, Agim Ceku may have been involved in ethnic cleansing or other terrorist acts (see article), or something like that.

ChrisO, does this seem like correct advice to you?

I agree entirely with your comments about going beyond the facts in evidence. The question of the Racak massacre is a rather complex one, which is dealt with in some detail at Racak incident. However, I should note that the POV that 1liberator has put forward is an extreme minority one which I'm not sure even the Serbian government endorsed; you can see a mention of it at Racak incident#Other claims. I don't think it's necessary to repeat the claim in this article, as it's not widely regarded as credible and doesn't really add anything to the article.

I hold no brief for or against Ceku, but if we're to attribute claims properly here, we need to say that (1) the view that he's a war criminal is specifically one that some on the Serbian side hold, and (2) he hasn't been indicted on any war crimes charges so far as far as I'm aware. Perhaps 1liberator can provide a source for this particular claim, which I notice he hasn't done... -- ChrisO 01:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I should add that I haven't received any e-mails from 1liberator - my ISP's been having a lot of problems over the last few days, which may account for that. Sorry! -- ChrisO 01:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so now we have a discussion going. Next, I believe that there is no Serbian/Albanian/Whatever side, just the truth; Serbanians and Albanians are BOTH extremely bad tribes, and have BOTH commited atrocities, war crimes, etc, So let us hear the minority position, here, since we are trying to be fair to the public and report the facts. Now, it is a well-known and documented fact that 250,000.00 people were expelled by the KLA after 1999. Why does Chris-o have a problem with pointing that out; just let the last paragraph stay as it is right now, and I am happy to forget-off. Otherwise, we have a problem, the KLA is represented as a bunch of goody-shoes, when in fact they are as bad as the "serbian side" -- which I absolutely DO NOT support and wholeheartedly oppose. I simply insist that we let the World know about the treatment of minorities of Kosovo after 1999. If you want, draft a proposed joint statement and let's see what we can agree on. Thanks, your 1liberator 02:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Ps. On Cheku, read the sealed indictments; do you think this is the man to lead the people of Kosovo? Pss. Where do you show evidence that Serbians commited atrocities on Kosovans? Take a taste of your own medicine, by your standards your whole article is suspect. Psss my aditions JUST as opinionated as Chris-o's, would you not agree? The facts ARE that KLA is a terrorist group, that Serbian police + other groups ARE terrorists, too, and that the people of Kosovo suffered pre 1999 and post 1999. Why can't we just say something like that, please? Then we would not have a propaganda piece on the KLA, as I see it. Thanks, 1liberator 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC) OK most importantly I will tone down but give me a finger (haha!) I mean I hate to tell you but the article is too pro-KLA, do you not see that? Remember, I am just trying to add one paragraph on the effects of the KLA on others, could we please have that 1 para worded properly and included to show the effects of KLA rule on the people of Kosovo -- you must agree, the KLA is just as bad to the Serbs now as the Serbs were to Albanians pre 1999. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT, THAT IS A FACT, AND THAT MUST BE SHOWN IN WIKIPEDIA. Thank you 1liberator 03:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

1liberator - lol... I'll let ChrisO answer the questions, but WHOOOAAAA... no shouting, keep it cool, everything will work itself out. is everything properly referenced?  :-) Ted 04:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ted, I live to laugh. Anyways, I referenced everything to the best of my ability, but it looks like Chris-O deleted my references, so now we just have numbers like [4] and [5] in the text. I will redo them again, but could you show me how to actually reference them in the 'references' page. Sorry for my screams, I apologize, I will not let it happen again. Thanks for mediation, yours 1liberator 06:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

actually, the numbers are normal, and nothing got deleted - that's how wikipedia handles outside links. for instance, this is a link to google [8]. if you want the link to have text, type it like this [http://www.google.com| google], and you'll get this: google. the pipe character (upright line) is right above the return key on most keyboards (shift-backslash), and make sure to put a space right after the pipe, otherwise the following text won't show. Ted 07:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

1liberator, I think you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, "or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article." -- ChrisO 08:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Chris—if I can throw in a 'middle of the road' comment (what else is a mediator for, yah?) it's very rare that you find an editor or an article that lacks a point of view entirely. Notice please that one of 1liberator's original complaints is that you yourself have a POV that paints the KLA as too respectable. this kind of difference of perspective is normal, and doesn't necessarily represent advocacy or soapboxing, so long as it's within reasonable bounds. but I think you know that.  :-) I'm curious, though, why you removed the 'sealed indictment' comment when 1liberator provided a source Halifax Herald Limited. Is that source unreliable? or do you really think the point is off-topic? my own inclination (given that the source is usable) might have been to add a comment such as "the ICTY has, however, denied that any such secret indictment exists (see citation)." That allows readers to make up their own mind about which source to believe. of course, if the reference is yellow journalism, propoganda, or otherwise unreliable, then your deletion is the correct response. Ted 15:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's plain wrong, as well as from an unreliable source. The article is dated September 10, 2001 (inauspicious date!). At the time, the ICTY was still investigating and still issuing indictments, and it had a policy of "neither confirming nor denying" whether any particular individual had been the subject of a sealed indictment. Serbia's "Blic" newspaper of 4 March 2006 carries the following brief story, which I'll post here for the record:

Artman: There is no indictment

There is no indictment that the Hague Tribunal has raised against Agim Ceku. The last one in Kosovo was against Haradinaj. There are also no new investigations. They all were closed in December 2004. After that all indictments became public and available on Internet', Florence Artman, spokesperson of the Hague Tribunal's prosecution said for 'Blic'. [9]

1liberator's source is an op-ed article (not original reportage) from Scott Taylor, a Canadian journalist who's something of a polemicist and from what I've seen of his writing, rather sloppy with factual accuracy. I wouldn't call it yellow journalism but I wouldn't call it good journalism either. I don't think he would qualify as a reliable source. But as the assertion is demonstrably wrong anyway, it's a moot point. -- ChrisO 21:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

ok, I understand perfectly. :-) Ted 21:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ted, please stop these attempts to mediate, or at least make clear to people that it is completely informal, and not connected to the mediation cabal. You're a very new editor, but it takes a lot of editing experience and a good working knowledge of our policies to mediate well, or even adequately. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't mind Ted's efforts on this page - he may be a relatively new user but his contributions here have been useful and an independent viewpoint is also appreciated. -- ChrisO 00:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your contributions and mediation. Chris-o, just a few questions: 1)will you help me to draft a joint statement on KLA crimes, including the expulsion of minorities after 1999?; 2) Will you stop deleting my contributions and my references? and 3) Will you accept that Wikipedia must include these facts? (i.e. KLA as a group of armed individuals who expelled minorities en masse from Kosovo after 1999, my right to post facts, etc.) I agree with you that Wikipedia is not a propaganda forum, its supposed to be an Encyclopeadia. It's supposed to have some reputation, like "The Nation" where my articles came from, and not like "Blic" where I see a naked woman on page 3. But, you sound like an un-american propagandist, since you can't stand to read my view of the facts. Above all, Wikipedia is an American institution, where we cherish free-speech, and the right of anyone to post facts -- check out the Abu-Ghraib page (full of pro's and con's but all are included in there). Wikipedia is also a Florida not-for-profit corporation, so venue is proper in Florida courts. I never had a blog; I won many Judgments, however. The issue, is, therefore simple: do you agree to co-operate, do you agree not to delete my factual contributions, or do we need to take the dispute to a formal (Wikipedia) level immediatelly? Ps. I have (again) added facts as a last para, please do not delete them, let us work together on this one, or you will really prove me right :) Finally, since one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, truth be told, I absolutely equate the KLA with Arkan's terrorists, or other Serbian terrorist attacking Sarajevo, Kosova, etc; no pardons here. Let us just condemn equally terrorism, whether from Serbian, Albania, Morrocan, American, Eskimo and other origin -- terrorism is terrorism, and it should be universally condemned in an encyclopaedia designed for the World to read.

ok, it looks like things are going smoothly here, and (as you can see) I have some user troubles of my own that I don't want to spill over onto this page. so if you both agree, I'm going to bow out and mark this case as closed. 1liberator, if you have any other questions, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page; I'm always happy to help if I can.  :-) Ted 04:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I will not allow hateful Serb Propaganda in this page. Ferick

[edit] New references

I have added a few new references and moved the external links to a new header. The article looks clearer now, as an external link does not necessarily mean it has been used as a reference. Also, it would be great if someone could provide links to the other Jane's defence weekly articles too. Regards, Asterion ^{talk to me} 13:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In the external link you provided, I read that KLA is in none of those lists:

• US Terrorist Exclusion List Designee: No

• UK Proscribed Group: No

• Australia Specified Group: No

• Canada Specified Group: No

• EU Specified Group: No

What kind of source are we talking about here then? in one word: unreliable. If you give me a hint what you are trying to prove with these sources, I could maybe help you out. Until then I do not want to speculate that you are just trying to use old (i.e. Milosevician) materials to make KLA look as terrorist at every cost. If you keep adding such references, you will just (re)start an edit war here. Please reconsider! Ilir pz 14:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you followed all the links I added? The KLA was removed from the US DoS list in 1998. Well, I restored the external link to the White Book as Serbian Government views (as for 2003, so no Milosevic here) are important. The rest of the links are from western media sources. I would gladly add the link to the WSJ-Europe if I could but I found this using Lexis-Nexis, which as you probably know, is a paid database and excluded by Fair Use. My point is that the KLA actions were deemed as terroristic at some stage and this is verifiable. The US changed its policy towards the KLA in the late nineties, as explained. I cannot see the point of edit-warring over verifiable sources. Thanks, Asterion ^{talk to me} 14:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: It seems it has not taken your friend Ferick long to start reverting and making feeble accussations. This is what give Wikipedia a bad name. --Asterion ^{talk to me} 15:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you don't seem to get it. KLA was called a terrorist organization by one individual one time. Reading this article you get an impression that KLA was actually a terrorist organization. We can have one reference and one link that says KLA was considered a terrorist organization by Robert. G. I am not going to agree to have the word terrorist all over this article because that is misleading to the reader, which is your goal. If we go by your definition, the U.S government can be classified as terrorist as well. You either don't know what you are talking about, you are trying to purposely mislead, or you have no common sense.

Another thing: I don’t care if that link you provided is not from Milosevic’s government. The current government of Serbia has the same policies towards Kosovo.Ferick

Can you please discuss your contributions instead reverting for no particular reason? --Asterion ^{talk to me} 15:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I do have a reason and it's clearly stated. I have contributed quite a bit a while back. Now I am more of a fact checker as everything that needs to be said has already been said.Ferick

Considering the sources are all from Western media and academia, I find your "Serbian government propaganda" comment an insult. I have spent a good time researching and verifying the sources I used. Wikipedia is not a matter of personal preferences: You may not like that the KLA was once considered a Terror Organisation, but that does not change the facts. I would appreciate some constructive criticism instead Ad Hominem attacks. Regards,

No they are not."GOVERNMENT OF SERBIA (2003): Albanian Terrorism and Organised Crime in Kosovo-Metohija (White Book), pp 9-14"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferick (talk • contribs)

If you bother to differ the edits[10], you will realise that I simply added the reference link and left the text as it was in Ilir's edit. If you are not happy with it, simply remove the <ref> link and keep the White Book on external links. Is that OK with you? --Asterion ^{talk to me} 15:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As if I knew that would happen. That is why I advised you to use rather neutral sources. The one you gave, if not all from "srpska mreza" they are made by it somewhere as they clearly cite data given by (then) Serbian sources during Milosevic's time. I am more than sure about that. The current regime did not know about the alleged crimes by KLA, they got them from Milosevic's era. I have to agree with Ferick that the current regime, when it comes to Kosovo, it just does not use mass killings of civillians, for the rest it has the same attitude.Ilir pz 15:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What is really annoying me is that you want to whitewash the article somehow. I have spent the whole morning finding the articles MYSELF. The result is quite balanced. If you object to having the white book link, please tell me why. Thanks, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 15:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

the whitebook is cooked by Milosevic era, and is just being used by the current regime. No way, Asterion. That is not netral at all. Please! Ilir pz 15:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What? 2003?--Asterion ^{talk to me} 16:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would I agree to leave Serb government propaganda links when there is no pro Albanian links? I don't get it! Ferick

If we add pro-Albanian links then we will have to mention the word terrorist for every action that the Serbian army and police did in Kosova, we are well aware that more than 10000 Albanians got killed somehow. NATO did not do that. Let us keep derrogations away as of now. Hope you understand.Ilir pz 15:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Has the KLA got an official site? I can't see why there should not be some balance. Regards, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 15:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

KLA is not an existant organization to have a website. 15:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added some more links, from a pro-albanian view. I also refactored the word terrorism out from the other one. Regards, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 16:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Not only removing the White Book link now but also the MIPT one (the most reliable databank on the subject of terrorism in the world)? Exactly what I suspected. A clear example of whitewashing. --Asterion ^{talk to me} 16:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading MIPT seems to me very similar to Milosevic's army statements on KLA. I will try to find the same text somewhere. Not sure I should consider MIPT the most reliable source on terrorism in this case. You still insist that KLA was terrorist, don't you? Ilir pz 16:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not about my personal opinion. I normally keep that to myself. This is an encyclopaedia and it should cover all verifiable sources. You asked for the DoS source and I gave it to you. All the other links are verifiable too. If we can keep references from various POV in the Kosovo article, what is different here? Listen, Ilir, I am not in the mood for edit war. I have improved my edits and tried to compromised with everyone of my versions but I see that Ferick is still playing the fanatic game and does not care about 3RRing. This makes me really sad indeed. Regards, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 16:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

A source that has no sources cited is not a source :). It is speculation. Your source you gave, Boris, cites NO ONE where he got all those claims. If he wrote an article it does not mean that he is right, as long as he has no facts about his claims. Furthermore, "The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.", so it is a pure speculation from his side. ilir_pz 01:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

We can't rely on the UN to give us sources for every single detail. --serbiana - talk 01:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the latest additions

The latest additions to this article present some major problems with NPOV and citations. I'll go through the additions below to highlight where I think the problems are:

The Kosovo Liberation Army was an "extremist militant group"

This is plainly POV - Albanians regard it as a national liberation movement, Serbs regard it as extremist and terroristic. The text currently called it an "armed group" - both sides can at least agree with that description.

In the years immediately before the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the al-Qaeda militants moved into Kosovo, the southern province of Serbia, to help ethnic Albanian extremists of the KLA mount their terrorist campaign against Serb targets in the region. The United States, which had originally trained the Afghan Arabs during the war in Afghanistan, supported them in Bosnia and then in Kosovo. When NATO forces launched their military campaign against Yugoslavia (in March, 1999) to unseat Slobodan Milosevic, they entered the Kosovo conflict on the side of the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army), which had already received “substantial” military and financial support from bin Laden’s network, analysts say. [11]

This shouldn't be included in the article, on several grounds:

1) First, it's extremely POV; you state it as proven fact when it's - at the very least - highly disputable.

2) Second, it's very much a minority claim - I've never seen any reputable source supporting that claim (and I've read a lot of material on Kosovo, including stuff that isn't in the public domain). See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.

3) Third, the source is inadmissible; it comes from Kurt Nimmo's personal website, it's by the website's owner, and Wikipedia policy on sources dictates that it can't be used as a primary source (Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Personal websites as primary sources).

4) Fourth, it's from an extremely partisan source - not necessarily a disqualifying factor but definitely requiring it to be treated with great caution. (Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan websites).

5) Fifth, it constitutes original research from a source that is neither credible nor widely published - this disqualifies it from use. (Wikipedia:No original research).

In short, it's simply not the kind of content that we can or should use in a Wikipedia article. -- ChrisO 19:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Agree --Telex 19:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• I support ChrisO's points. ilir_pz 21:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• I do not agree --serbiana - talk 21:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Is there some particular reason? --Telex 21:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• You know, it doesn't actually matter if you don't agree - that's what the policy states. If you disagree with the policy, tough. If you don't want to follow the policy, you're editing the wrong encyclopedia. -- ChrisO 21:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• I do not agree --serbiana - talk 21:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Boris, your edit is mainly from an opinion piece. They cannot be generally used as sources. --Asterion ^{talk to me} 21:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• I do not agree --serbiana - talk 21:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of external links and references

There has recently been some unexplained removals by User:Ferick. I would appreciate an explanation on this behaviour. Asterion ^{talk to me} 21:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Reason: Unreliable Source.Ferick 22:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, it may not be an entirely accurate source - I don't think the Serbian government has a neutral view on Kosovo. But it is a definitive statement of the Serbian POV and as such, we need to have it in the article. I've restored it to the article and warned Ferick about removing it. -- ChrisO 22:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, if that article is cited than every second word in this wiki page would sound like "terrorist" or "islamic fundamentalists" referring to KLA. I am not sure how reliable a source it is when it has been written by the regime that horrified the whole Balkans (Serbs admit the latter as well). ilir_pz 22:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, removing a line from a 3 page article is a minor edit. I guess I am going to have to translate something from KLA Veteran's Association and bring it here to balance the sources. Just giving you heads up that that will be a biased and inflammatory article. I expect that no one will challenge it.Ferick 22:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Bringing articles from the KLA's Veteran Association is a legitimate source. I encourage you to do that. They were not condemned as terrorist by the world, instead they are even recognized in the European Association of War Veterans. Only Milosevic's regime, (and obviously the new one as well, how similar they are when Albanians are in question) did call them terrorists. ilir_pz 23:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Added info about Fatmir Limaj. As you know he was a senior KLA Commander.Ferick 14:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I added information on Haradin Bala, also tried at the same time and sentenced by the ICTY. Asterion ^{talk to me} 17:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Haradinaj was never exradited to The Hague. He turn himself him- a big difference. Bala a senior KLA member? Far from the truth. Removing false info.Ferick

Bala was a "Commander of the Lapusnik (Llapushnik) camp", according to the indictment. Maybe it should read "a less senior member" instead. Asterion ^{talk to me} 17:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It either a senior, or a non senior. How can you have less senior or more senior members? ilir_pz 17:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to the ICTY, he was Commander Guard of the Lapusnik Camp[12]. Whether you consider this position less senior than a front line commander's is what I was talking about. He was obviously a senior member but his level of seniority less than Limaj's. Regards, Asterion ^{talk to me} 17:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

So, now a small prison commander becomes a senior commander huh? Not by any stretch of imagination!Ferick 17:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

He was not a simple Prison Guard but the Commander Guard: Check it here in page 58. Thanks, Asterion ^{talk to me} 17:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That's the Indictment which also talks about how Limaj was in overall control of the prison. Only an Indictment- not a proven fact. Bala was never a senior KLA Commander. Nobody in Kosovo knew about the name Bala before he was indicted.Ferick 22:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess the word Commander Guard is misleading. In any case, he was not just a simple prison guard, but NOT a senior KLA commander I see. On the other hand, once someone is convicted, the facts are assumed proven. Regards and good night, Asterion ^{talk to me} 22:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The link you are providing has been tampered by a cynical commentary and it is not in its original form. Your intention is more to show the commentary rather than the original article( which was balanced).Ferick 20:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean "tampered?" I'm showing the article, which clearly talks about KLA ATROCITIES COMMITTED AGAINST THE SERBS. LIVE WITH IT. C-c-c-c 20:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was a typo. Well, why can't you just find a link that has the original article on it? Your intentions are malicious to say the least.

Chris, the article looks more balanced, but where are you getting this info about KLA crimes outside Kosovo?Ferick 21:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

So you admit that KLA did do crimes, at least within Kosovo? Oh my God, we've reached a breakthrough!! Malicious, haha, no, your KLA puppetry is malicious. I found a link that has an article in it, if you can find the same article that tells a different tale, then prove me wrong. Otherwise, leave it. C-c-c-c 21:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the cross-border arms smuggling, which has been a long-running problem both before and after the war - the KLA got many of its weapons from looted Albanian depots in 1997. There were also some (IMO well-substantiated) reports before the war that the KLA's backers in Switzerland and Germany were involved in the smuggling of heroin and other drugs, using the proceeds to fund KLA activities. See e.g. this Washington Times article. -- ChrisO 21:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo free account website is a credible source? since when ChrisO? ilir_pz 21:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Read the article - it's a genuine newspaper article which someone has put on a personal web page. I've got access to the original article (via a subscription database) but I thought you would prefer to read it for yourself. Consider it a convenience link if you like... -- ChrisO 21:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have the same problem. You can find things via Lexis-Nexis but not the original link to the article as published in the newspaper, as most times these are available only online for a limited period. So, if we want to link to an old article, the most suitable solution is to link to a mirrored version, even if it is posted at Yahoo or similar. In any case, the article authenticity is still verifiable as long as the correct date of publication is given. Regards, Asterion ^{talk to me} 22:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I might add that the same reports appeared in Jane's Intelligence Review, which is an extremely well-sourced publication. Again, I can dig those out if need be. Jane's was a major source for me when I wrote this article a long time ago. -- ChrisO 21:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, he'll never accept, they'll come up with one reason or another why they think it's Serb propaganda. Cheers, C-c-c-c 21:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

KLA buying arms to fight Serbs is a crime now huh? Amazing!

In any case you could have said arms smuggling rather then crimes outside Kosovo. Anyone reading the article would come to the conclusion that the KLA killed civilians outside Kosovo. Is that your intention? Ferick 00:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commander Reference

Ferick, stop sympathesizing with guilty KLA members, and stop minimizing their roles. Asterion proved it, it's not POV pushing if it's true dumbass.

P.S. You're an Albanian living in Missouri? How's the redneck life going, better than in Albania? Haha C-c-c-c 21:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability of sources

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources are to be incorporated in this article, only. Please consider the sensitivity of the topic before you carry on your NPOV pushing. Thank you, ilir_pz 23:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like sockpuppets took over. I will have to ask for revisioning the CheckUser. ilir_pz 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Whenever there is a source that is in direct conflict with your POV, you call it unreliable. I hope everyone sees how nationalistic this all sounds. Also, PLEASE REQUEST CHECKUSER, I REALLY WANT TO SEE JUST HOW WRONG YOU ARE. -- serbiana - talk 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, I am impressed. So 3 times you revert, then Estavisti (like a flash) and then Krytan. Nice but traceable. Your days here are counted. ilir_pz 23:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Request a checkuser, and stop wasting your time here. I am in Vancouver, Krytan is in Toronto, and Estavisti is in London. Good luck proving we are the same person. -- serbiana - talk 23:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets and Personal Attacks

I would like to remind people to stay calm and avoid provocations and personal attacks. This is a sensitive issue. Please do not let Wikipedia down with insults and accusations. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 14:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KLA links to organized crime

The intro claims that the KLA "was widely regarded as being involved in postwar criminal activities". For the sake of improving the quality of the article, I believe such a statement should be backed up by sources. I have found a couple which mention this but, since I am new to the article, I would prefer if those editors who have been here longer comment on whether or not they are appropriate/good sources.

• Human Rights First, a US NGO, says "The vacuum in policing has created a climate of criminality and empowered organized criminals, including some former KLA members and their supporters." [13]

• A 1999 Washington Post article on the KLA titled "Rebels With an Uncommon Cause," by Peter Finn and R. Jeffrey Smith apparently (I have not been able to find the article) stated that:

"Although the KLA denies any links to criminal activities, Western law enforcement officials say ethnic Albanian criminal gangs are funneling some profits to the war effort. 'Turkish [drug] trafficking groups are using Albanians, Yugoslavs and elements of criminal groups from Kosovo to sell and distribute their heroin,' according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration office in Rome. 'These groups are believed to be a part of the financial arm of the [KLA's] war against Serbia. These Kosovars are financing their war through drug trafficking activities, weapons trafficking and the trafficking of other illegal goods..."

Any other souces? Cheers Osli73 23:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Some more for you:

• BBC News, "Kosovo gripped by racketeers", 5 April 2000: "Police in the province believe much of [the organised crime] is being controlled by the successors of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)." [14]

• BBC News, "Analysis: Kosovo chooses normality", 30 October 2000: "[The public's] admiration for the KLA had turned to disgust at the way in which many of its former commanders have, since the end of the war in June 1999, used their positions to seize businesses and property and even murder anyone they believed was standing in their way." [15]

• BBC News, "New dawn for Kosovo", 19 November 2001: "There is a widespread belief among Kosovans that former KLA guerrillas have been involved in post-conflict violence and organised crime." [16]

• Guardian, "Kosovo polls feed separatist fever", 28 October 2000: "The biggest problem remains lawlessness in a country with one of the highest concentrations of guns in the world. The judicial system is biased against Serbs; crime and corruption are endemic. The PDK, which has many members who fought in the KLA, and close links with organised crime, has control of many towns and villages." [17]

This really isn't difficult to source. It's plain that Ilir and Ferick are motivated purely by POV reasons in deleting cited references to Agence France Presse, Jane's Intelligence Review and the Times of London as "Serbian fabrications and speculations, that mislead the reader, and have no credibility whatsoever" in Ferick's words. Having lots more references to the same thing is good but I suspect it won't overcome bone-headed POV-pushing of the sort we've seen so far. -- ChrisO 00:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody serious wil question the KLA is terrorist and mafia. Only alb deny this.

In the interest of clarity, it should state that former members of the KLA... The KLA itself was disbanded immediately following the war. Davu.leon 15:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

                                       Lefties?

Are they commies?

[edit] I think this is worth reading

This article put the multi-billion dollar opium-herion industry into scope in regards to Afghanistan. If you want to learn more about this aspect of Afghansitan and how it ties in with Kosovo, the KLA, and the rest of the world and the world economy read this article.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061017&articleId=3516

[edit] Protection against nationalistic vandalism on Kosvar related links

There should be some sort of of protection against nationalistic propaganda and vandalism on Kosovo related articles. I edited the following from this article:

"CEKU IS A WAR CRIMINAL WHO SHOULD BE IN THE HAGUE! CEKU IS A WAR CRIMINAL WHO SHOULD BE IN THE HAGUE! CEKU IS A WAR CRIMINAL WHO SHOULD BE IN THE HAGUE! CEKU IS A WAR CRIMINAL WHO SHOULD BE IN THE HAGUE! CEKU IS A WAR CRIMINAL WHO SHOULD BE IN THE HAGUE! CEKU IS A WAR CRIMINAL WHO SHOULD BE IN THE HAGUE! CEKU IS A WAR CRIMINAL WHO SHOULD BE IN THE HAGUE! CEKU IS A WAR CRIMINAL WHO SHOULD BE IN THE HAGUE! CEKU IS A WAR CRIMINAL WHO SHOULD BE IN THE HAGUE! CEKU IS A WAR CRIMINAL WHO SHOULD BE IN THE HAGUE! CEKU IS A WAR CRIMINAL WHO SHOULD BE IN THE HAGUE! CEKU IS A WAR CRIMINAL WHO SHOULD BE IN THE HAGUE!"

It was pervasive throughout the article

[edit] Role of disintegration/chaos in Albania

The article only mentions in passing the role which the chaos/civil war which engulfed Albania following the crash of the pyramid schemes there had on the Kosovo conflict. As far as I understood, arms plundered from military warehouses in Albania was a major source of weapons, at least in the beginning of the conflict. The KLA also had military bases inside the Albanian border. Should we expand on thsi in the article? RegardsOsli73 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

moved from my talk page and responded here: // Laughing Man 04:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

Which bit is original research? Sanmint 03:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

So essentially, your edits were, below.

• (cur) (last) 16:02, December 16, 2006 Laughing Man (Talk | contribs) (rv WP:NOR)
• (cur) (last) 14:46, December 16, 2006 Sanmint (Talk | contribs) m
• (cur) (last) 14:43, December 16, 2006 Sanmint (Talk | contribs) (rewording, adding extra info)

// Laughing Man 03:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

yeah but which bit was original research????Sanmint 04:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

all of it. // Laughing Man 04:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish, everything is sourced. KLA had become a "reluctant" partner to the NATO supplying it with intelligence. Serbian forces did drive out 800k people according to a UN report. 8k civilians killed by the Serbian forces. Which bit is Original reasearch???Sanmint 04:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You did not give any sources for your edits above. // Laughing Man 04:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I just used the sources that were there already. All the bits I have entered are factual, and nothing is made up. If you can suggest alternative wording so that it avoids offending anyone then pleaso do so. Sanmint 12:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Using Serbian government as source

I think we can not use Serbian Government (or KALA for that reason) in a encyclopedia article about KLA. Serbian Government and KLA fought with each other and it would be VERY inencyclopedic to use something published by them as a source. I ask you to read WP:Reliable sources. Please stop pushing POV. --Noah30 18:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact we can, and such things are done regularly. If things sourced to governments which fought with each other would be removed, a lot of Wikipedia would become blank. Nikola 18:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We can not because the source is unrealiable. Stop with this POV pushing. --Noah30 18:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added POV template because I want someone to consider the use of Serbian government as a source. The source and the conenent itself is very baised. Using this source is against the WP:Reliable sources and WP:NPOV --Noah30 18:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The source is reliable. Governement of Serbia is no less reliable than government of any other country. Neither the source nor the content is biased, it is just a list of KLA victims. Do you know of any other sources about the number of victims? Nikola 21:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Government of Serbia is less reliable than other governments since they have been involved in major massacres against civilian population. They also refuse to deliver war criminals responsible for genocide etc. The best solution is to put a POV template and someone who is not from Balkans can consider it. I still think the source is very POV. I have a source saying a total of 500 Serbs died during the whole Kosovo war. --Noah30 07:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Nearly every government in the world has been involved in major massacres against civilian population. A number of governments also refuse to deliver war criminals responsible for genocide. Nikola 11:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The government of a country vs. a terrorist organization... Who do we trust? This is tough... :) --Bolonium 01:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just shows why you make POV edits all the time.

We do need to make it clear that the source is clearly labelled in the main text, not just in the footnotes - i.e. "According to the Serbian government ..." It is no doubt a biased source, but as long as we make it clear to the reader that the data comes from one party in the conflict, we should be OK. -- ChrisO 07:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, and no. If there is no other source disputing it, there is no need to clearly label source in the main text. What you propose would create impression that this information is under dispute, while it in fact isn't. And the source is not biased. It is simply a list of all KLA victims. Nikola 11:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The source is pure propaganda and labels all Albanians criminals. The source is biased and disputed. Besides KLA is not mentioned in the source. We will have to remove it. --Noah30 13:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not propaganda, does not label all Albanians criminals, is not biased and not disputed. KLA is the only Albanian terrorist organisation that was active on Kosovo at the time. Nikola 14:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

At the end, what Chris wrote is quite good - "Serbian government reported" - though I believe he went too far with "were said to have been" - for example, after police and army withdrew, of course all victims have to be civilians. Shouldn't POV tag now be removed? Nikola 07:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KLA losses?

--HanzoHattori 11:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "War Crimes" section

Hanzo, you recently changed the subtitle from Casualties to Allegations. While I agree that Casualties maybe wasn't the perfect title I don't think Allegations is the correct one either, as there is quite a lot of evidence of KLA involvement in kidnappings and killings of civilians, both before and after the war. Here are some:

• Killings blamed on KLA, UN fears master plan by Albanian leaders for an independent and ethnically pure Kosovo, by Peter Beaumont. The Observer, Sunday July 25, 1999 [18]
• Theater of the Absurd in Kosovo, by Gary Dempsey. CATO Institute, August 21, 1999. [19]

We now know, however, that in the first seven weeks of NATO's occupation there were 198 confirmed homicides, 573 confirmed arson attacks, and 840 confirmed incidents of looting. More than 40 Serbian Orthodox churches and monasteries have been destroyed or damaged, and 200 Serb civilians have been kidnapped. According to Human Rights Watch, more than 80 percent of the Serbs in Kosovo have left or been driven out. Most of the kidnappings and murders, adds the rights group, have been committed by members of the KLA, who believe NATO has given them expansive reign.

• A Fragile Peace: Threats to Justice in Kosovo, published by Human Rights First (1999), [20]

Much of the violence and many of the crimes committed since the arrival of KFOR are attributed to persons linked with the KLA, including killings, kidnappings, and threats and intimidation of Serbs and other minorities. Increasingly, Kosovar Albanians who are seen as opponents of the KLA or "collaborators" with Serbs are facing violence and threats, particularly in rural areas that are effectively controlled by the KLA.

• Kosovo, Lessons from the Crisis, 2000, UK Ministry of Defence. [21]

8 October – KLA declares a ceasefire, but continue attacks against security forces and kidnapping and executing ‘collaborators’ during October, November and December. North Atlantic Council approves Operation Plan for Phased Air Operations

*Serbia and Montenegro, Amnesty International, 2004. [22]

In January the Tribunal secretly indicted four former Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) members including Fatmir Limaj, a senior aide to leading Kosovo politician Hashim Thaci. The indictment was for crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war in connection with the murder and torture in 1998 of Serbs and of Kosovo Albanians perceived as Serb collaborators. It was made public after three of the accused were arrested in February and transferred to the Hague. In July former KLA commander Rustem Mustafa and three others were convicted in Priština (Prishtinë) of war crimes connected with the illegal confinement, torture and murder of suspected ethnic Albanian “collaborators”. They received sentences of up to 17 years’ imprisonment.

• Kosovo: KLA Veteran Under Investigation, IWPR, 1 December 2001.[23]

Gani Imeri, a former commander in the Kosovo Liberation Army, KLA, has become the first of the now disbanded organisation's veterans to be arrested on suspicion of involvement in serious crimes against Kosovo Serb civilians during and after the war.

So, to degrade this information to "Allegations" is incorrect. How about "War Crimes", since some have also been prosecuted for these.Osli73 12:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition, not all of these crimes happened during wars. Nikola 15:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps the section itself should be cleaned up to deal specifically with war crimes (alleged and confirmed). Other criminal enterprises tied to the KLA, such as trafficking and smuggling, could be dealt with in a separate section.Osli73 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations missing and POV tags

I'll agree that the article could do with more citations/references. However, I can't find any list of specific POV grievances motivating the current pov-tag. If there isn't any list of issues forthcoming I think we should remove the pov-tag. Osli73 13:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The intro is very POV, presents only the Serbian version. The source about how many were killed by KLA does not mention KLA. But neither you or Nikola are known for respecting NPOV. Hope you have changed. --Noah30 15:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree that NPOV is in the eye of the beholder. It would be easier if you listed exactly what it is that you find to be POV since it is very difficult to discuss the issue otherwise. Osli73 16:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Osli I am on wikibreake and don't have much time but there are many things in the article which I find POV and against the Wikipedia rules. E.g. take a look at reference 5. No place in the text which is in Serbiam is KLA mentioned. Isn't this POV? --Noah30 17:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Noah30, since I can't read Serbian I can't comment on the text. However, I don't think it's appropriate to use non-English language sources, especially not Serbian or Albanian, on a topic such as this. I will remove it and all other non-English sources, and, unless there are other sources which vouch for the statement I will remove that specific statement. OK. CheersOsli73 18:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with this!!!--Noah30 06:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

On a second, though, given that the text states that it's the allegation of the Serbian government, I guess it would be acceptable that the source is in Serbian. However, I still can't vouch for whether or not the text justifies the article statement.Osli73 18:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can't come up with any other specific reasons for the POV tag I think it should be removed.Osli73 18:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the reference, it is simply a list of victims with summary of their distribution by nationality and civilian status. I have just found the English version at [24] (only summary, without the list of victims).

As an example, here is the first entry from the list of killed:

1. АНТИЋ ИЛИЈА, земљорадник, рођен 18.07.1934. године у Лоћанима, општина Дечани, од оца Милоша. Отет неутврђеног датума и убијен од стране албанских терориста. Његов леш пронађен је почетком септембра 1998. у околини села Глођане, општина Дечани, у каналу око Радоњичког језера заједно са још 33 леша (доказ*: 360/99-1, 360/99-9, 516/99-31, 517/99-24, 288/00-5, 288/00-6, Р-20).

Translated:

ANTIĆ ILIJA, a farmer, born 18.07.1934. in Loćani, Dečani municipality, of father Miloš. Kidnapped on undetermined date and murdered by Albanian terrorists. His body was found in early September 1998 near the village of Glođane, Dećani municipality, in the canal around Radonjičko lake with 33 more bodies (evidence: 360/99-1, 360/99-9, 516/99-31, 517/99-24, 288/00-5, 288/00-6, Р-20).

There is absolutely no reason why this reference would not be fully believed. Nikola 05:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me make clear that I don't contest the crimes but the numbers which I think are exaggerated. According to KMLDNJ during whole 1999 465 non-Albanians were killed in total. Report--Noah30 06:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the source in question refers to the opinion of the Serbian government I believe it would be OK to use a Serbian language source (if no English version of it is available). Also, since it clearly states that it's a Serbian government report we should just leave it at that and not try to determine whether or not it's correct or not. However, if we find a more netural/authorative report, we should use this. I'm removing the POV and ref tags. Osli73 09:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Osli you have to understand that the source you are using does not mention KLA. And remeber that KLA did not exist in 2001 (war crimes section). I think this is POV. --Noah30 18:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Noah, again, I have no idea what the source says (since it's in Serbian) and if it's an incorrect/irrelevant source then please go ahead and remove it. I'm in no position to determine if it's relevant or not. Cheers Osli73 19:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Noah, I see that you've added a POV tag. However, I'm not sure why. If you say what things you find to be POV then we can discuss them and move forward. However, until then it is not possible to justify the tag. I'm taking the liberty of removing it. Cheers Osli73 19:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War Crimes

1. "(for a more detailed overview see Victims section)" - No "Victims section" for a more detailed overview to see.
2. "War Crimes" - Because Writing Like This Is Totally Awesome, Look.
3. Numerical claims by the Serbian gvt only. - Booooring. Expand/update requested. Also: which gvt - Slobo's? --HanzoHattori 22:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo, just a quick search of the net finds many mentions of KLA attacks on civilians and kidnappings. The ICTY has also launched investigations on several KLA commanders. Here are a couple of sources:

1. Under Orders, a book on war crimes during the Kosovo war published by Human Rights Watch in 2001. See Chapter 1 "Abuses by the KLA".
2. "Ex-KLA chiefs jailed for warcrimes" by the BBC in 2003
3. ICTY indictment against R Haradinaj, the initial indictment in 2005 and the ammended indictment in 2007 ([25] select Haradinaj under "Select an accused name").

So, calling them "alleged" is not fitting with how they are reported elsewhere. I don't know about the numbers mentioned in the text since I can't read Serbian. However, I'm sure there is lots of other info we could put in there from these reputable sources above. Cheers Osli73 23:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, here's a proposal for a new section on KLA war crimes. Let me know what you think:

There have been widespread reports of war crimes committed by the KLA both during and after the conflict. These have been directed against both Serbs, other ethnic minorites (principally [Roma]) and against ethnic Albanians accused of collaborating with the Serb authorites. [26] According to a 2001 report by Human Rights Watch (HRW):

The KLA was responsible for serious abuses… including abductions and murders of Serbs and ethnic Albanians considered collaborators with the state. [27]

It is also believed that the KLA has played a key role in the ethnic cleansing, kidnappings and murder of Serbs and other ethnic minorities after the end of the war. HRW writes:

Elements of the KLA are also responsible for post-conflict attacks on Serbs, Roma, and other non-Albanians, as well as ethnic Albanian political rivals... widespread and systematic burning and looting of homes belonging to Serbs, Roma, and other minorities and the destruction of Orthodox churches and monasteries... combined with harassment and intimidation designed to force people from their homes and communities... elements of the KLA are clearly responsible for many of these crimes. [28]

The KLA is also accused of on purpose provoking attacks by Yugoslav security forces against civilian targets by, for example, staging attacks from villages, knowing that the response would create bad publicity for the government forces in the international media:

The KLA… engaged in military tactics in 1998 and 1999 that put civilians at risk. KLA units sometimes staged an ambush or attacked police or army outposts from a village and then retreated, exposing villagers to revenge attacks. Large massacres sometimes ensued, helping publicize the KLA's cause and internationalize the conflict. [29]

Following the end of the war several of the leading figures in the KLA have been convicted of war crimes by the ICTY, including [crimes against humanity] (torture, murder, kidnapping and rape). [30][31] In 2005 the then ‘Prime Minister’ of Kosovo and former KLA commander, Ramush Haradinaj, was indicted together with two of his lieutenants on 37 counts of war crimes. According to the ICTY he was responsible for a plot to drive out Serbs and other ethnic minorities from Kosovo through a campaign of murder, rape and torture. [32] Despite this, Ramush Haradinaj remains popular with many Kosovo Albanians. [33]

The exact number of victims of the KLA is not known. According to a Serbian government report, from January 1 1998 to June 10 1999 the KLA killed 988 people and kidnapped 287; in the period from June 10 1999 to November 11 2001, when NATO took control in Kosovo, 847 were reported to have been killed and 1,154 kidnapped. This comprised both civilians and security force personnel. Of those killed in the first period, 335 were civilians, 351 soldiers, 230 police and 72 were unidentified. Following the withdrawal of Serbian and Yugoslav security forces from Kosovo in June 1999, all casualties were civilians, the vast majority being Serbs. [34] According to Human Rights Watch, as “many as one thousand Serbs and Roma have been murdered or have gone missing since June 12, 1999.” [35]

CheersOsli73 12:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Guess what? WHATEVER. Do not cite me here, cite in the article where I pointed out. --HanzoHattori 13:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo, sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this. CheersOsli73 19:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've now added the proposed text to the article. CheersOsli73 09:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who says the KLA is extremist?

I've just read the first paragraph, and ther i found the word “extremist” pinned to the KLA. Is there any reliable Western, non-Russian, non-Greek, non-Cypriot and non-Serb source to assure this? Because as far as I know, to defend the Kosovar people and be in favor of Kosovo independence are not “extremist” positions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.42.20.236 (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't terrorism considered extremism? Rugova was not an extremist, but the KLA terrorists were. (LAz17 15:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)).

[edit] Terrorist

...was defined as such by the United Nations Security Council. Quoting Resolution 1160 from 31 March 1998: "Condemning...acts of terrorism by the Kosovo Liberation Army or any other group or individual and all external support for terrorist activity in Kosovo, including finance, arms and training." --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

To be fair I only scim-read this article, but does not seem to represent a neutral point-of-view. Seems very pro-Serb. The KLA may well have been involved in terrorist activity, but to some Albanians out there they represented freedom fighters, etc. and I think this needs to be more clearly shown in the article rather than what seems to be demonization of the group and the Albanian take on the situation.

13:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)~

[edit] Aftermath

I've been bold and hidden the following paragraph from the aftermath section:

A group of dissidents of KLA have formed a small new group that is opposing the UNMIK in Kosovo. In 2007 it placed a bomb below a UN truck. It is closely associated with the Albanian National Army, viewed as terrorists by the government of the Republic of Macedonia and some western countries. It is apparent that forces with KLA origin have been behind the systematic destruction of Serbian Orthodox churches in Kosovo and harassment of individuals of various ethnicities opposed to them in the territory. [36]

I think this a series of extraordinary claims and needs much better sourcing than kosovo.net, which I would argue should not count as a reliable source at all. I'd be happy to take this to the reliable sources noticeboard if anyone disagrees. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 06:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I second that, these claims must have better sources than Kosovo.net. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

yeah. Kosovo.net really shouldn't be considered a reliable source. Ossicle (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war / POV problems

I'm not at all happy with what's been going on with this page in the last few days, particularly with the highly biased editing that has been going on from both sides. Frankly, the article is a mess now, with many unsourced and overtly biased statements having been added. This isn't acceptable; compliance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy isn't optional. I've protected the page temporarily to enable the current disputes to be resolved on this talk page without edit-warring. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The UN calls them terrorists, if that clears things up at all. That is a fact. Another fact is that this group is/will be celebrated as national heroes in Kosovo, much in the same way as Hezbollah in Lebanon. I don't know about the perfect wording, but "It is recognised by the UN and other organisations as a terrorist group" or something like that, stating how it is viewed, rather than what it is, should be placed in the article. BalkanFever 01:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as the edit war: The last thing I worked on was the introduction, which I think is fairly well balanced POV-wise and well sourced (one citation needed tag, which I put there) in its current version. HRW is a perfectly acceptable source, as is the BBC and the NYT. Ossicle (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

huh. took the time to reread the article and the talk page and realized that i've rather naively wandered into some crazy hyper-nationalist pocket universe in which i'm not particularly interested. I'm unsure whether even listing areas of dispute would serve any purpose here, given that the edits are mostly either anonymous or done by Hereward77, who has a long history of um... unproductive editing. In fact, given revision history, the quality of discussion on the talk page, and the totally open structure of Wikipedia, I'm fairly sure that it is institutionally incapable of generating a useful article in this case at this time. It should probably just stay locked 'til after Serbia cools down - otherwise it'll just keep getting more and more bloated and disjointed. In any case, I'm not devoting any more of my time to this until there's at least a chance of actually making a decent article.

IMO and for what it's worth: Hereward77 needs to be blocked from this article (at the least). It's not just POV problems and constant reverts, but a general sense that s/he isn't proceeding in good faith. Edit war, reliable sources, and flaming complaints are all over their talk page, so this is serial abuse of the system, and it's the kind of thing that's completely counter-productive when tolerated: due diligence now means that someone will need to check any edit Hereward77 touches for POV and (ESPECIALLY) reliable sources and reference accuracy, and then have anything they do reverted over and over anyway. Allowing this to continue just wastes everyone's time and the frustration drives away other users. (E.g.) I'm done now. GBCW, cheers, etc.Ossicle (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KLA - terrorist organisation

needs correction in the introduction:

Sentence: The Yugoslav authorities considered the KLA to be a terrorist organization[4], as the US did until 1997 is incorrect according to INTERPOL's testimony http://judiciary.house.gov/Legacy/muts1213.htm

'... In 1998, the U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Usama bin Laden...'

Lakinekaki (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incredibly false and POV article

Firstly, not only the Yugoslavian authorities considered KLA terrorist but also plenty of other factors. One such is the United Nations, refer to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1166 which criticizes terrorism of KLA and the Chancellor's statements.

Additionally, the CIA considered KLA terrorist, the INTERPOL, and the US State Department and countless other less relevant factors. This version is horribly POV and totally unrealistic.

Next of all, it makes completely biased claims, even falsifying that which sources claim: "The Serbian government reported that the KLA had killed more than 10,000 civilians, both Serbs and Albanians." The source actually states that the KLA had killed 1,835 people, which is also obviously true because international & neutral sources claim that the Yugoslav/Serbian casualties are "between 1,000 and 2,000". "as the US did until 1997." That is also false. The USA considered it terrorist until late 1998. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KLA Is Terrorist

Why is everyone trying to make them sound like they're a good organization? If KLA is not a terrorist organization to you guys, then Al Qaeda or Hezbollah or Al Muhdi isn't. This is a redicolous statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.163.224 (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edit war: organ trafficking allegations, witnesses killed, armament and logistics

I have already once removed these sections for the following reasons:
Organ trafficking allegations:The organ trafficking allegations all come from a single source promoting a forthcoming book. They are second-hand or third-hand allegations - e.g. Le Monde reporting (in French) that del Ponte's book contains allegations substantiated by "reliable sources." There are several sources (one or two Serbian language reports, one French, an English one from Fox News) but each one contains EXACTLY THE SAME INFORMATION: they can't corroborate one another or substantiate the allegations further. In my opinion, because the allegations are about trafficking in HUMAN ORGANS - e.g. are incredibly inflammatory, on par with calling them cannibals or vampires - reports of this kind aren't sufficient proof for WP: exceptional claims require exceptional sources WP:RS. Someone should actually read del Ponte's book, pull quotes from the original and place them in context - e.g. saying "she says they sold organs" isn't as useful as saying "As part of her work as prosecutor, X source made Y allegation to del Ponte. These allegations are substantiated by Z, A, B..." - and then they could be included. I feel very strongly about this, and will remove them unless someone gives me a really, really good reason not to.
Witnesses to KLA crimes deaths: this section is sourced to an editorial, which doesn't comply with WP:RS. Furthermore, the text is copied without alteration from a copyrighted source without indicating it's not original, which is ALSO not in compliance with WP:RS. This section can be added back once 1) there are corroborating sources with are not editorials, and 2) the text of the section is re-written so as not to violate copyright.
Armament and logistics: this section is ENTIRELY UNSOURCED. it has been sitting there with fact tags on it for over a year, which is far, far too long to leave unsourced material up.
Do not revert these changes without providing a good reason here. Ossicle (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

as long as it says it's an allegation and not real fact it can stay here. Please do not remove sourced material. That is often called vandalism here --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate, even when labeled "allegations:" the claim is SO extreme that it needs to be better sourced. Labeling it an "allegation" in this context just serves to pass along unsourced inflammatory accusations, which shouldn't be WP's role.

It definitely falls under Wikipedia:Fringe theories: "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves in articles about themselves or their activities, and any information used must be directly relevant to the subject and their cause of notability. Articles using such sources should not repeat any contentious claims, or any claims made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." I will revert based on this until another mainstream source appears to corroborate these allegations.

And, by the way, you know very well this is an edit whose purpose is to improve the article. "Content disputes do not constitute vandalism."WP:EDITWAR So, please, don't insinuate that it's vandalism.Ossicle (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ossicle. TheFearGod is making POV edits in Kosovo-releated articles, especially about Del Ponte's allegations. What about reporting him? He uses dubious sources and has as a goal to to write negative things about Albanians here at Wikipedia.--Noah30 (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be making the grievous mistake of equating the KLA with ordinary Albanians. The KLA were terrorists. Albanians are not. BalkanFever 06:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear: In the context of this discussion, I only have an opinion concerning these particular allegations. They aren't acceptable for the purposes of WP and should be removed if they are restated in any article in a context that doesn't comply with WP:RS. Ossicle (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead of proposing a compromise, you're removing the whole part. I'm not gonna agree on that. The removal could amount to censorship.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a situation in which "compromise" is an option: the material does not comply with WP policies and until the material can be presented in a way that is up to WP standards, it should not appear in WP. It's not "censorship:" WP is not an appropriate place for some kinds of speech, and it openly says so in its policies.Ossicle (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, please don't revert until there is some consensus about the issue here: that's the way WP is supposed to work. WP:CON Ossicle (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

clearly sourced material is complying with WP standards, always!--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

no, there are a variety of clearly soured materials that are unacceptable for certain purposes here. read WP:RS. that's why that document exists. to the point here is: Wikipedia:Fringe theories: "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves in articles about themselves or their activities, and any information used must be directly relevant to the subject and their cause of notability. Articles using such sources should not repeat any contentious claims, or any claims made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." Ossicle (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

oh, that seems a good point. I hope user Noah30 takes example from Ossicle's useful and constructive argumentation and refrains from unjustified duscussion-lacking and disrupting edits like [37] --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ossicle, ICTY has rejected the claims made by Del Ponte. Link: http://www.un.org/icty/briefing/2008/pb080416.htm. Ossicle you are doing a great job to maintain Wikipedia objective. --Noah30 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is it a fringe theory? Who said this? Carla del Ponte's views aren't "widely acknowledged as extremist".

I think this should be mentioned here, along with ICTY's statement. Alæxis_¿question? 21:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Um. For all the reasons listed in the first paragraph of this section - the allegations are incredibly inflammatory, being advanced by exactly one person, are completely unverifiable and unverified, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources," etc. - I think del Ponte's work is entirely unacceptable here.

How about: "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them." WP:RS

Or:"* surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; * claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and BLPs. Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them." WP:REDFLAG

As far as it falling under WP:Fringe - nobody else is advancing these claims, they're being condemned as inflammatory fantasy by every national government except Serbia (which obviously has a stake here), and the organization for which she worked as prosecutor has denied that she presented any evidence to substantiate them. That seems sort of the definition of "Fringe." I'd be amenable to putting a mention of the The Hunt: Me and the War Criminals article in the see also section, but that's really about the extent I think these allegations deserve to be represented.Ossicle (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide sources that every national government (or at least some of them, except for Albania and Kosovo, "which obviously [have] a stake here") have considered this allegations inflammatory. These claims are not "contradicted by the prevailing view" as there's no prevalent view that this didn't happen (if you don't agree please provide sources). Summing up, I still think that this has nothing to do with Fringe theories.

How would you agree to mention Del Ponte's book in the article? Alæxis_¿question? 09:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, please don't revert until there is some consensus about the issue here: that's the way WP is supposed to work. WP:CONOssicle (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In light of new arguments I tend to agree with Alaexis. The part is so NPOV now that it should be present.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

wait, just to make this clear: you're asking that I provide sources that saying the KLA killed prisoners and sold their organs on the black market is inflammatory? Huh. Would have thought that was obvious: much like saying they're cannibals whose love to feast on the flesh of newborn children, it just seems kinda', um, inflammatory. You're right though, there aren't sources for that. And you're also right that Albania and Kosovo are the only other nations to have said anything - I mean, except the Swiss, that is, del Ponte's other employers, who have banned promotion of the book - and that they obviously have a stake in the matter. And you're right, there is no prevailing view on the matter because it's pretty regularly, and I gotta' say reasonably, assumed that people don't kill their enemies and sell their organs on the black market after extracting them in backwoods barnyard hospitals. Nope, these are fringe: there remains EXACTLY ONE SOURCE for these allegations, documented in a variety of places, but one source with no verification. Is there some kind of arbitration board for these kinds of disputes? Because I'd be glad to go there with this discussion.Ossicle (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's exactly what I wanted to do myself. Alæxis_¿question? 21:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to repeat this for the benefit of TheFEARgod: DON'T REVERT UNTIL THERE'S SOME CONSENSUS HERE: that's the way WP is supposed to work. WP:CON You'll notice that I'm not the one reverting you, either, BTW.Ossicle (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Del Ponte's book

The disagreement is whether and how allegations of organs trafficking by Kosovo Liberation Army should be mentioned in this article.

Um, if you just used the template, the thing needs to be added to the comment list by hand. Ossicle (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I didn't know the bot no longer works. Alæxis_¿question? 06:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside Opinion. Yes, I agree this section should be removed until you have multiple high quality third-party sources. One book does not cut it for extreme claims. If every "allegation" about every group were posted in Wikipedia, it'd be an encyclopedia of gossip and hearsay, and not on actual facts. If third-party sources can be found that support the text, then it can be re-inserted. Renee (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is not nearly just any group - and yes, we put these things into articles regularly (when made by significant bodies). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to restate the objections: The sourcing is very thin. The organ trafficking allegations all come from a single source promoting their book. They are second-hand or third-hand allegations - e.g. Le Monde reporting (in French) that del Ponte's book contains allegations substantiated by "reliable sources." There are several sources (one or two Serbian language reports, one French, an English one from Fox News) but each one contains EXACTLY THE SAME INFORMATION: they can't corroborate one another or substantiate the allegations further. The claims are extreme, unsubstantiated (e.g. based on second-hand reporting of witness reports), uncorroborated (no one else has produced anything else like this), and possibly unverifiable (what evidence can conclusively establish these claims?). Because the allegations are about trafficking in HUMAN ORGANS - e.g. are incredibly inflammatory, on par with calling people cannibals or vampires - reports of this kind aren't sufficient proof for WP: exceptional claims require exceptional sources WP:RS. The response to these objections seems to consist of: 1. Del Ponte is a sufficient source because of her former position; and 2. Serbia, Russia and Human Rights Watch seem to believe her. Those reasons are completely insufficient: until there are multiple third party sources, these allegations should stay out of WP. Ossicle (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Reject giving this any credibility - Outside Opinion - the basis of this claim is thin indeed. It's popped up 9 years later, the numbers don't mesh properly and the claims are confused and incomplete. Most significantly, there have been no bodies found, despite there being body-sniffing dogs searching the region (and not finding a fraction of what they expected!). At some time in the future we may discover a small number of desperate people sold their organs to an Albanian-based gang linked to the KLA, but in the meantime, we should not give the body-snatching claim, shocking as it is, any credibility. The very most we can say (perhaps in "See Also") is something like "Claims of organ-harvesting from prisoners have been made <link> but there has been no independent substantiation". Doing this might save us discussing the question again, while leaving open the option of re-opening the matter if real evidence of body-parts trading is discovered later. PR^talk 14:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ???

When we write about a group that is commonly considered terrorist it makes sense to list countries that do NOT share this view. On the other hand KLA is not universally considered a terrorist organisation as far as I know so it makes sense to list countries that claim otherwise.

If we are to mention European countries, why not to mention US, China, San-Marino or any other country that also didn't accuse KLA of terrorism. Alæxis_¿question? 19:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Because we are not making a list here, we could just say : ... considered it a terrorist group, but the US and most European countries, however, didn't. -- CD 20:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)